Tag: donald trump

Inside The Trump Administration’s “Master Plan” For Gaza Regime Change

On October 10, the latest Gaza ceasefire was officially declared. According to the plan, ‘Phase One’ of the ceasefire was supposed to include a full cessation of hostilities, the mutual exchange of captives on both sides, with pledges for at least 400 humanitarian aid trucks to enter the besieged coastal territory for five days and an unlimited number afterwards.

From day one, Israel not only violated the ceasefire agreement through shooting dead a number of Palestinian civilians, but also unleashed a range of Palestinian collaborator militias to begin targeting Gaza’s local security forces. Hamas, as the governing force inside the Gaza Strip decided to re-deploy some 7,000 police and security officers to the streets of the war-ravaged territory, attempting to restore order after its forces were prevented from operating during Israel’s relentless bombardments.

Although Israel’s own forces have directly murdered over 100 Palestinian civilians since the start of the ceasefire, it had decided to switch its strategy on October 10 to using proxy forces to do its bidding instead of its own soldiers. The insidious plot, or “master plan” that has been in the works over the past two years, as US Envoy Steve Witkoff admitted during a recent interview on 60-minutes, also involves carving up Gaza into cantons ruled by separate forces.

This plot is a strategy for a multi-layered scheme that will seek to effect regime change, and in its worst iteration means the tax payer will foot the bill for another multi-national war of aggression — the goal being the completion of the objectives Israel failed to achieve through its own military operations.

In order to fully understand this scheme, all the relevant factors must be explored.

Keep reading

Trump Says SNAP Benefits Will Be Solved for Next Month

President Donald Trump said that he believes Republicans will solve how to fund food stamps, when he was asked about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the government shutdown.

SNAP is slated to expire by Nov. 1, potentially ending benefits for millions of people across the United States.

“We’re going to get it done,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Oct. 29. “The Democrats have caused the problem, unfortunately. All they have to do is sign, and if they sign, I’ll meet with them.”

The president then suggested that the shutdown is linked to broader talks on health care and an extension of subsidies. Senate Democrats have refused 13 times to pass bills to reopen the government because those measures do not include health care provisions, including an extension of Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare) subsidies slated to expire at the end of the year.

“We have to fix health care because Obamacare is a disaster,” Trump said, referring to the Affordable Care Act. “When you see the increases in Obamacare, it never worked, it never will work, and we could do something with the Democrats much better than Obamacare. Less money and better health care.”

Trump then said that health insurance companies are “making too much money” and said that talks are needed between Republicans and Democrats when the shutdown ends.

Keep reading

Amnesty Urges US Bombing of Yemen Migrant Detention Facility To Be Investigated as a War Crime

Amnesty International said on Wednesday that the US bombing of a migrant detention facility in Yemen earlier this year amounted to an indiscriminate attack and should be investigated as a war crime.

The US strike was launched on April 28 and killed 68 African migrants who were detained at the facility in Yemen’s northern Saada province. The attack was part of the US military’s bombing campaign in Yemen that was conducted from March 15 to May 15, which was dubbed “Operation Rough Rider,” and killed more than 250 civilians.

Amnesty said in a report on the strike that it “did not find any evidence that the migrant detention centre was a military objective or that it contained any military objectives.”

The report, which involved interviews with 15 Ethiopian migrants who survived the attack, also pointed out that the US should have been aware that the strike would result in heavy civilian casualties since the Saudi military, with support from the US, bombed the same facility in 2022 and killed more than 90 civilians.

“Given the air strike killed and injured civilians, the US authorities should investigate this attack as a war crime. The result of the investigation, including any conclusions related to civilian casualties and efforts to respond to them, should promptly be made public,” Amnesty said.

Operation Rough Rider involved another mass civilian casualty event, the US bombing of the Ras Issa fuel port in the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah, which occurred on April 17. The strikes killed 84 civilians, mainly workers at the port, according to Airwars.

When the US announced the attack on the port, it did not allege that it was hitting a military target. US Central Command justified the bombing of vital civilian infrastructure by saying the Houthis, who govern an area where about 70% to 80% of Yemenis live, “profit” off fuel that enters the port.

Keep reading

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Missile Defense Could Cost $3.6 Trillion: Report

President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed Star Wars, promised to create a missile defense system so effective it would eliminate the threat of nuclear war forever, at a cost of around $70 billion. As it turned out, the technology just wasn’t feasible. And the Soviet Union figured out how to overwhelm the missile defense system at five percent of its cost. Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, scaled Star Wars down to a much more modest program called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes, emphasis on limited.

Now President Donald Trump is promising that, with today’s technology, he can create an impenetrable missile shield for $175 billion. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in May 2025 that the program could actually cost up to $542 billion over two decades. And according to independent analysis, the CBO may actually be underestimating the cost sixfold. Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has calculated a $3.6 trillion price over two decades. Harrison and other experts spoke to The Washington Post for a bombshell report published on Wednesday.

The Golden Dome is designed as a “multi-layered” system. One layer would be ground-based missile batteries. Another would be a constellation of satellites orbiting the Earth, ready to shoot down incoming missiles from above. That latter part was also part of the Star Wars program. Proponents say that lower launch costs today—thanks, Elon Musk—make it more feasible today, according to The Washington Post. Harrison, however, estimates that it would take 950 satellites per enemy missile. The American Physical Society puts the number at 400 interceptors for a lower-end North Korean missile and 1,600 for a higher-end North Korean missile.

North Korea is estimated to have 50 nuclear weapons. And that’s the lower end of the threats that the Golden Dome is supposed to counter. China has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and Russia has thousands. “You need so many more interceptors than missiles, it becomes operationally impractical,” Harrison told the Post.

The Golden Dome program could also scale up ground-based missile defenses. The U.S. military maintains 44 interceptors at a base in Fort Greely, Alaska, designed to launch an “exoatmospheric kill vehicle” that would intercept an incoming ballistic missile in space. But even tests conducted “under scripted conditions and designed for success” show a 55 percent success rate for those interceptors, the American Physical Society reports. The Pentagon has been quite sensitive about that fact. After the recent movie A House of Dynamite depicted U.S. interceptors failing, the Missile Defense Agency wrote up a memo claiming that the system is 100 percent foolproof.

Keep reading

Republican Socialism Goes Nuclear: Trump Bets $80 Billion on Government-Backed Energy

Since President Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office, the federal government has trademarked its own version of Republican socialism by nationalizing steel production and taking equity stakes in chip manufacturers and mining projects. Now, it’s getting involved in the nuclear power sector. 

On Tuesday, Westinghouse Electric Company announced that it had entered “into a strategic partnership” with the federal government, Brookfield Asset Management, and uranium fuel supplier Cameco Corporation to build “at least” $80 billion worth of Westinghouse’s AP1000 nuclear reactors across the country. The agreement was made “in accordance” with Trump’s May executive order, which called for the deployment of 10 new large nuclear reactors in the U.S. by 2030, according to Westinghouse. 

The details of the agreement are still a bit murky, but the federal government will underwrite at least some of these projects, while others might be financed by Japan. On Tuesday, Japan’s trade ministry pledged to invest $550 billion into American projects, in exchange for lower tariff rates from the Trump administration. Included in this package was an “artificial intelligence and a nuclear reactor construction initiative that was expected to be worth up to $100 billion and involve Mitsubishi Heavy [Industries] and Toshiba,” reports The New York Times. 

The deal might also allow the federal government to take an equity stake in America’s largest nuclear power company. Bloomberg‘s Liam Denning writes that as long as the U.S. government follows through on its financial commitment, “it would then get a 20% share in any dividends paid out by Westinghouse above a $17.5 billion threshold.” If these projects are up and running within the next “three years or so” and “Westinghouse is deemed at that point to be worth at least $30 billion, the company may then be required to do an initial public offering with the government getting warrants that may convert into an equity stake,” according to Denning. 

Nuclear power is clean, reliable, and safe, but forcing taxpayers to bet on its future success is risky. After thriving throughout the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, the industry has been plagued by P.R. disasters and project failures that have hampered nuclear power for much of the last 30 years. 

Recent efforts to revive the industry have not done much to build public confidence. A failed nuclear power plant project in South Carolina, which featured two AP1000 reactors, left ratepayers on the hook for millions of dollars, although Brookfield Management is considering reviving the project, according to the Associated Press.

Keep reading

US Military Officials Involved in Latin America Campaign Required To Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements

US military officials involved in the Trump administration’s military campaign in Latin America have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, Reuters reported on Tuesday, citing US officials.

The report said the request is highly unusual, since US military officials are already required to keep secrets from the public, though it also acknowledged that the Pentagon has previously used NDAs under the leadership of War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The news comes as members of Congress have complained about the Trump administration’s lack of transparency about the campaign, which has involved bombing alleged drug-running boats and a substantial military buildup, and a push toward a regime change war to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

The US War Department has not provided any evidence to back up its claims about what the boats it has been bombing are carrying and hasn’t provided any information about the people it has been killing in strikes that amount to extrajudicial executions at sea.

In an interview on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been very critical of the bombing campaign, affirmed that Congress hasn’t received any information about the people the Pentagon has been targeting. “No one said their name. No one said what evidence. No one said whether they’re armed. And we’ve had no evidence presented,” Paul said. “So, at this point, I would call them extrajudicial killings.”

Keep reading

Hegseth Announces 14 Killed In New, Largest Single Attack On ‘Narco-Terrorist’ Boats

Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth has announced yet more strikes on alleged drug vessels operating off South America, in what’s becoming a weekly thing. This latest strike involved four total boats – in what looks to be the largest single set of strikes yet.

Unlike most of the some nine strikes recorded thus far, these fresh attacks were on the Pacific side of Latin America, and not directly off Venezuela’s coast. There’s been only one other prior instance, announced earlier this month, of such operations on the Pacific side.

The attacks against several vessels occurred Monday. Hegseth disclosed on Tuesday, “Yesterday, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out three lethal kinetic strikes on four vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations (DTO) trafficking narcotics in the Eastern Pacific.”

“The four vessels were known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth continued.

The death toll was high in comparison with other attacks which stretch back several weeks. Hegseth continues in his statement on X:

Eight male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessels during the first strike. Four male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the second strike. Three male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the third strike. A total of 14 narco-terrorists were killed during the three strikes, with one survivor.

All strikes were in international waters with no U.S. forces harmed. Regarding the survivor, USSOUTHCOM immediately initiated Search and Rescue (SAR) standard protocols; Mexican SAR authorities accepted the case and assumed responsibility for coordinating the rescue. 

This note about cooperation from Mexican authorities is interesting, and shows that not all regional governments are against the heightened Pentagon action off their shores – or else they are simply too scared of the Trump administration to say ‘no’.

Keep reading

US Officials Disagree With Trump on Venezuela

In the waters of the Caribbean, a surprisingly large U.S. fleet sits with Venezuela in its sights. It includes over 10,000 troops, Aegis guided-missile destroyers, a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, F-35B jet fighters, MQ-9 Reaper drones, P-8 Poseidon spy planes, assault ships and a secretive special-operations ship.

The fleet is built for war on Venezuela or its drug cartels, but it is engineered to put enough pressure on Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro to push him from power. The justification for the war is stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S. by Venezuelan drug cartels; the justification for the coup is that Maduro is the head of those cartels.

But U.S. officials – often those in the best place to know – have disagreed with all three aspects of the military action: the significance of Venezuela’s drug cartels in the flow of drugs, and especially fentanyl, into United States; the role of Maduro in those cartels; and the use of the military to fight them. For their disagreement, many of those officials have left or been forced from their jobs.

U.S. President Donald Trump has insisted that military force is necessary to stop “narco-terrorists” who are smuggling a “deadly weapon poisoning Americans. He has claimed that “every boat,” the U.S. military strikes off the coast of Venezuela is “stacked up with bags of white powder that’s mostly fentanyl” and “kills 25,000 on average – some people say more.”

But current and former U.S. officials disagree. While most of the boats the U.S. military has sunk have been in the passageway between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago, U.S. officials say that that passage is neither used to transport fentanyl nor is it used to transport drugs to the United States. 80% of the drugs that flow through that passage is marijuana, and most of the rest is cocaine. And those drugs are headed, not to the U.S., but to West Africa and Europe. Most of the fentanyl that finds its way into the U.S. comes from Mexico.

The military strikes on Venezuelan boats cannot be justified by the war on drugs and “are unlikely… to cut overdose deaths in the United States,” according to officials. “When I saw [an internal document on the strikes],” a senior U.S. national security official said, “I immediately thought, ‘This isn’t about terrorists. This is about Venezuela and regime change’.”

According to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 90% of the cocaine that transits into the U.S. enters through Mexico, not Venezuela. And Venezuela is not a source of fentanyl. The dissenting American officials are in agreement with international bodies. The  2025 UNODC World Drug Report assesses that Venezuela “has consolidated its status as a territory free from the cultivation of coca leaves, cannabis and similar crops.” The report says that “[o]nly 5% of Colombian drugs transit through Venezuela.” The EU’s European Drug Report 2025 corroborates the UN report: it “does not mention Venezuela even once as a corridor for the international drug trade.”

U.S. intelligence also disagrees on the Trump administration’s claim that Maduro is at the head of the Venezuelan drug cartels. The Trump administration has insisted that “Maduro is the leader of the designated narco-terrorist organization Cartel de Los Soles.”

Again, though, U.S. officials disagree. A “sense of the community” memorandum dated April 7, 2025 that puts together the findings of the 18 agencies in the U.S. intelligence community released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence directly contradicts the Trump administration’s claim that Maduro is the leader of Tren de Aragua (TDA) drug cartel.

The memorandum clearly states that “the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.” It states that the intelligence community “has not observed the regime directing TDA.”

Keep reading

Election Interference Litigation: Trump’s Case Against the Des Moines Register and Pollster Moves Forward

Back in 2018, I launched a podcast very loosely tied to what I’ve done for a living for many years, and so I called it “Shaping Opinion.” The very first topic I sought to cover was how political polls are used to shape public opinion and influence the vote. 

Needless to say, I didn’t get any takers who were willing to put themselves out there on this issue, and not just in that first year. This has always been one of those topics I’ve been ready to seize on if any new studies or indisputable proof would come up that would give me a chance to dig in. But no matter who I approached, people got awful shy on this one, especially after the presidential race of 2020. 

Of course, this is one of those topics where you can trust your own eyes and ears, and your powers of observation over time. In every presidential election cycle, Democrats are over-sampled and Republicans are not. Pollsters say there are reasons for this, but they never tell the full truth. 

You can count on public polls telling you early and often that the Democrat candidate is dominating. At some point around the conventions, polls will say each candidate saw a “post-convention bounce,” but the Republican candidate’s bump is always temporary and fleeting. The Democrat candidate’s bounce is always framed as the start of the home-stretch run where he or she is a likely winner. 

This is to condition the voters into assuming the Democrat will win. Social psychologists often say that most people like a winner, so for many, once they have a sense from the polls who the likely winner will be, that’s who they decide to vote for. 

Anyone with common sense who has seen this pattern over at least three election cycles can detect for themselves that polls are commonly used to shape opinion, not reflect it. 

So last year, when a well-respected pollster from Iowa named J. Ann Selzer published her final numbers for “The Iowa Poll” three days before election day, many of us were extremely curious. She released what was the final Des Moines Register presidential election poll, which had Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by three points. 

Fox News called this a “shock poll” that “showed a seven-point shift from Trump to Harris from September, when he had a four-point lead over the vice president in the same poll.” 

Keep reading

WSJ: Trump Offered to Build White House Ballroom for Obama in 2010

President Donald Trump offered to build a White House ballroom for President Barack Obama in 2010 — but the Obama administration never took up his offer, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

The Journal reported:

For at least 15 years, Trump had tried and failed to build a grand ballroom at the White House that could host extravagant dinners for world leaders, lawmakers and celebrities. In early 2010, President Barack Obama’s top strategist David Axelrod got a call from Trump, then a real-estate developer and reality television star. They were connected via MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had closer ties with Trump at the time.

“He said, ‘You have these state dinners in sh—y little tents,” Axelrod recalled in an interview. “He said, ‘I build ballrooms. I build the most beautiful ballrooms in the world. You can come to Florida and see for yourself.’ ”

Trump offered to build a modular ballroom at the White House that could be deconstructed. “I was thinking, we’re in the middle of a recession, I’m not sure about this,” Axelrod said. Axelrod suggested that Trump get in touch with Obama’s social secretary about the ballroom. They didn’t connect.

The Journal noted that Trump had approached the ballroom the way he had approached other building projects in the past — discovering how to control the regulatory process, or finding loopholes, to allow construction.

The ballroom is being built with funding from private donors, with costs reaching an estimated $350 million.

The Washington Post editorial page defended Trump’s ballroom project, noting that even Obama and Biden administration alimni had admitted the need for an indoor space — as opposed to the current arrangement, which forces esteemed guests to walk across the grass and to use portable toilets outdoors at large gatherings.

Keep reading